The Contaminant Transport, Transformation, and Fate Sub-Model for

Downloaded by UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA on June 14, 2013 | http://pubs.acs.org Publication Date (Web): November 21, 2011 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2011-1069.ch014

Chapter 14

The Contaminant Transport, Transformation, and Fate Sub-Model for Predicting the Site-Specific Behavior of Distributed Sources (Munitions Constituents) on U.S. Army Training and Testing Ranges Zhonglong Zhang*,1 and Billy E. Johnson2 1BTS, Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, CEERD-EP-W, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180 2Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, CEERD-EP-W, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180 *[email protected]

Contaminant Transport, Transformation and Fate (CTT&F) sub-model was developed for coupling with existing watershed hydrological modeling systems to predict the site-specific behavior of distributed sources (munitions constituents) on U.S. Army training and testing ranges. Physical transport and transformation processes across the land surface are simulated using distributed approach and routed through channels to the watershed outlet. The CTT&F sub-model includes the ability to represent explosive contaminant processes at the watershed scale including: partitioning of contaminants to solid particles, freely dissolved, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) bound dissolved, and sediment sorbed particulates, erosion and settling of particle associated contaminants, diffusive and mixing exchanges across the water column and upper soil (sediment) interface. CTT&F has the capability to simulate biodegradation, hydrolysis, oxidation, photolysis, volatilization, dissolution, and other transformation processes. To demonstrate model capabilities, CTT&F was coupled with

© 2011 American Chemical Society

try of Explosives and Propellant Compounds in Soils and Marine Systems: Distributed Source Characterization and Remedial Technolo ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2011.


a Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) model, then tested and validated to simulate RDX and TNT transport and transformation using two experimental plots. These experiments examined dissolution of solid contaminants into the dissolved phase and their subsequent transport to the plot outlet. Model results were in close agreement with measured data. Such model can be used to forecast the fate of munitions constituents within and transported from training ranges and to assess range management strategies to protect human and environmental health.

Introduction The U.S. military operates munitions test and training ranges covering tens of millions of acres of land and waters throughout the United States (1). Many active and formerly used Defense sites (FUDS) have soil, sediment, surface water, and groundwater environments contaminated with explosives as a result of munitions fired, dropped, and disposed of on those ranges (2, 3). When a conventional explosive munitions detonates, it releases a large variety of chemical compounds and metals into the environment. Solid particles ranging in size from small to large (up to the diameter of the projectile) may be deposited on the soil surface (4, 5). At open burn/open detonation and explosive, ordnance, and demolition sites, RDX, HMX, TNT, NG, aDNT, and DNT can be found (6), which are of particular concern due to their potential toxicity to aquatic organisms and risk to human health. A discussion of explosive compounds expected for different types of ranges can be found in Clausen et al. (7). Another concern is heavy metals such as lead, cadmium, chromium, nickel, copper, and barium (1). Clausen and Korte (8) reported that small arms firing ranges at military training facilities can have enormous heavy metal burdens in soils.Once introduced into the environment, rainfall encountering these chemical compounds and metals can partially dissolve and thus may migrate with the infiltrating water deeper into the soil or as surface runoff. Any remaining dissolved materials may react with the soil matrix and adsorb onto soil particles and/or adsorb to dissolved organic carbon (DOC). In select range assessment detection of one component of Comp B, RDX, has been observed in groundwater on military training ranges (9) and thus necessitates the continued vigilance in regards to monitoring and assessing the potential for constituent migration. Assessing watershed-scale impacts of contaminated sites on water quality is a major component towards determining long-term military installation sustainability. Correspondingly, it is also necessary to estimate those quantities and attempt to determine where they all migrate. Such needs are increasingly achieved with the development of mathematical models that incorporate the processes of contaminant transport and transformations and the degree to which they are affected by human activities. One of the main characteristics of live fire training range munitions constituent (MC) loading is the spatial variability and its relation to landuse. On these sites, contaminant simulation models require a 242



distributed modeling approach because distributed models can account for spatial heterogeneity and allow for more accurate predictions due to changes in the landscape (e.g., topographic, landuse, MC distribution, soil texture, etc). A distributed modeling approach, as part of watershed management to meet water quality goals, is not new. Considerable advances have been made in hydrologic modeling in recent years (10–13). However, modeling the transport and fate of distributed sources and the phase distribution of contaminants is complex and has not received much attention for military installations and relevant contaminants. In particular, less effort has been devoted to studies simulating dissolution of solid contaminants and their associated multiphase partitioning transport at the watershed scale. The limitations of existing watershed models motivated development of a physically based, distributed source Contaminant Transport, Transformation and Fate (CTT&F) sub-model by the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC). Specifically, the CTT&F sub-model describes transport and transformation of contaminants through the various landscape media in a watershed. It operates on a cell by cell basis, allowing analyses at each cell within a watershed. Further, CTT&F can be linked to spatially distributed hydrologic models such as GSSHA (Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis) (11), CASC2D (CASCade of planes in 2-Dimensions) (14–16), TREX (Two-Dimensional Runoff Erosion and Export) (13), and others, assuming that the underlying watershed model provides required hydrological and sediment transport fluxes. In grid-based models, landscape features and other characteristics can be varied spatially among cells and contaminants routed from each source cell and through down-gradient cells from the watershed divide to the outlet. The distributed, process-oriented structure of the CTT&F sub-model facilitates identification of critical source areas within the watershed and can give insight to contaminant fate and persistence (10, 13, 17–19). The objectives of this research were to: (1) describe the movement and redistribution of contaminants across the overland plane or through a channel network throughout a watershed and the algorithms of the spatially distributed contaminant transformations; (2) develop the CTT&F sub-model; and (3) validate the performance of the CTT&F sub-model by calibration to test plot measurements of RDX and TNT concentrations in runoff. This development effort differs from previous efforts in that it focuses on transport and transformation of contaminants rather than runoff and sediment erosion caused by rainfall events. The model was designed to simulate four distinct contaminant phases, three of which are equilibrium (dissolved, bound, and particle-sorbed) and one of which is non-equilibrium (solid granular phase). The expectation is that a model of this type can quantify important transport and transformation processes for multiple contaminants and facilitate assessment of distributed sources, leading to better management of watersheds associated with military installations. The dissolution and transport capabilities are demonstrated by plot studies supported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Environmental Quality Technology (EQT) Research Program. Contaminants of concern in this study were TNT and RDX. Although applied for military 243


explosives, CTT&F formulations are general and are applicable to other contaminants as well.


Watershed Modeling Framework Flow water is the primary mechanisms for movement of distributed contaminants in watersheds. To simulate the contaminant transport and fate, it is necessary to estimate beforehand the watershed flow and sediment transport driven by the hydrological processes. The hydrological variables required to drive the CTT&F sub-model can be calculated using any physically based distributed watershed model capable of producing a reasonable simulation of the watershed flow and sediment transport fields. These include, (1) for surface transport: overland flow depth, flow in the coordinate directions, sediment load, and sediment concentration and (2) for subsurface transport: soil moisture and hydraulic head at various depths in the soil. The major components of the fully distributed modeling framework are hydrology, sediment transport, and contaminant transport. Each of the major components can be viewed as sub-models within the overall framework. The calculations for each process at any time level are independent and information is carried forward from hydrology to sediment transport to contaminant transport in order to generate a concentration solution. At any time level, flow is assumed to be unaffected by sediment and chemical transport, and sediment transport is unaffected by contaminant transport, so calculations for these three components (sub-models) have a natural hierarchy (Figure 1).

Figure 1. CTT&F modeling system framework (12).

244



The U.S. Army Corps of Engineer’s Gridded Surface Subsurface Hydrologic Analysis (GSSHA) is a physically-based, distributed-parameter, structured grid, hydrologic model that simulates the hydrologic response and sediment transport of a watershed subject to given hydrometeorological inputs. The watershed is divided into grid cells that comprise a uniform finite difference grid. GSSHA is a reformulation and enhancement of the CASC2D (Figure 2). The model incorporates 2D overland flow, 1D stream flow, 1D unsaturated flow and 2D groundwater flow components. Within GSSHA, sediment erosion and transport processes take place both on the land and within the channel. The GSSHA model employs mass conservation solutions of partial differential equations and closely links the hydrologic components to assure an overall mass balance. GSSHA had already been tested and applied for hydrologic response and sediment transport in several watersheds and achieved satisfactory results (20). Following is a brief introduction to GSSHA. Details of the GSSHA model can be found in Downer and Ogden (11). A review of hydrologic and sediment erosion and transport process descriptions is informative to illustrate the physics behind individual process representations and specific to those needed to drive a full CTT&F sub-model.

Figure 2. Topographical representation of overland flow and channel routing schemes within a watershed.

Hydrologic Processes Modeling hydrologic process begins with rainfall being added to the watershed, some of which is intercepted by the canopy cover, evapotranspirated or infiltrated. Hydrologic processes that can be simulated and methods used to approximate the processes with the GSSHA model are listed in Table 1.

245


Table 1. Processes and approximation techniques in the GSSHA model


Process

Approximation

Precipitation distribution

Thiessen polygons (nearest neighbor) Inverse distance-squared weighting

Snowfall accumulation and melting

Energy balance

Precipitation interception

Empirical two parameter

Overland water retention

Specified depth

Infiltration

Green and Ampt (GA) Multi-layered GA Green and Ampt with Redistribution GAR) Richard’s equation (RE)

Overland flow routing

2-D diffusive wave

Channel routing

1-D diffusive wave

Evapo-transpiration

Deardorff Penman-Monteith with seasonal canopy resistance

Soil moisture in the vadose zone

Bucket model RE

Lateral groundwater flow

2-D vertically averaged

Stream/groundwater interaction

Darcy’s law

Exfiltration

Darcy’s law

GSSHA uses two-step, finite-volume schemes to route water for both 2D overland flow and 1D channel flow where flows are computed based on heads and volumes are updated based on the computed flows. Several modifications were made to both the GSSHA channel routing and the overland flow routing schemes to improve stability, and allow interaction between the surface and subsurface components of the model. The combination of improvements in the stability of the overland and channel routing schemes has allowed significant increases in model computational time steps over CASC2D.

Overland Flow Routing Water flow across the land surface is shallow, unsteady, and non-uniform. This flow regime can be described by the Saint-Venant equations which are derived from physical laws regarding the conservation of mass and momentum. Overland flow routing in GSSHA employs the 2D diffusive wave equation, which allows for backwater and reverse flow conditions. The 2D (vertically integrated) continuity equation for gradually-varied flow over a plane in rectangular (x, y) coordinates is (16): 246



where h = surface water depth [L], qx, qy = unit discharge in the x- or y-direction = Qx/Bx, Qy/By [L2/T], Qx, Qy = flow in the x- or y-direction [L3/T], Bx, By = flow width in the x- or y-direction [L], ie = excess net precipitation rate [L/T]. The diffusive wave momentum equations for the x- and y-directions are written as:

where Sfx, Sfy = friction slope (energy grade line) in the x- or y-direction, S0x, S0x = ground surface slope in the x- or y-direction.

Channel Flow Routing Channel flow routing in GSSHA employs the 1D diffusive wave equation. The 1D (laterally and vertically integrated) continuity equation for gradually-varied flow along a channel is (16):

where A = cross sectional area of channel flow [L2], Q = total discharge [L3/T], and ql = lateral flow into or out of the channel [L2/T]. Sediment Transport Sediment erosion and transport are potentially very important processes in water quality modeling. Excess sediment affects water quality directly by itself. Sediment transport also influences chemical transport and fate. Suspended sediments act as carriers of chemicals in the watershed flow. Many chemicals sorb strongly to sediment and thus undergo settling, scour, and sedimentation. Sorption also affects a chemical’s transfer and transformation rates. The amount of chemicals transported by the sediments depends on the suspended sediment concentration and the sorption coefficient. Both sediment transport rates and concentrations must be estimated in most toxic modeling studies. The sediment algorithm is included as a sub-model in the GSSHA and invoked only when sediment simulation is required. The sediment sub-model is designed for estimating sediment delivery and channel transport in watersheds. It consists of four primary components: (1) sediment transport; (2) erosion; (3) deposition; and (4) bed processes (bed elevation dynamics). 247


Sediment Transport


The sediment transport models are based on the suspended sediment mass conservation equation (advection-diffusion equation with the sink-source term describing sedimentation resuspension rate) and the equation of bottom deformation. For the overland plane in 2D, the concentration of particles in a flow is governed by conservation of mass (sediment continuity) (21):

where Css = concentration of sediment particles in the flow [M/L3], q̂tx, q̂ty = total sediment transport areal flux in the x- or y-direction [M/L2T], Ĵe = sediment erosion volumetric flux [M/L3T], Ĵd = sediment deposition volumetric flux [M/L3T], Ŵs = sediment point source/sink volumetric flux [M/L3T], Ĵn = net sediment transport volumetric flux [M/L3T]. The total sediment transport flux in any direction has three components, advection, dispersion (mixing), and diffusion, and may be expressed as (21):

where ux, uy = flow (advective) velocity in the x- or y-direction [L/T], Rx, Ry = dispersion (mixing) coefficient the x- or y-direction [L2/T], D = diffusion coefficient [L2/T]. Note that both dispersion and diffusion are represented in forms that follow Fick’s Law. However, dispersion represents a relatively rapid turbulent mixing process while diffusion represents a relatively slow Brownian motion, random walk process (22). In turbulent flow, dispersive fluxes are typically several orders of magnitude larger than diffusive fluxes. Further, flow conditions for intense precipitation events are usually advectively dominated as dispersive fluxes are typically one to two orders smaller than advective fluxes. As a result, both the dispersive and diffusive terms may be neglected. Similarly, the suspended sediment transport in channels is described by the 1-D advection-diffusion equation that includes a sink-source term describing sedimentation and resuspension rates and laterally distributed inflow of sediments. The concentration of particles in flow is governed by the conservation of mass (21):

Individual terms for the channel advection-diffusion equation are identical to those defined for the overland plane. Similarly, the diffusive flux term can be neglected. The dispersive flux is expected to be larger than the corresponding term 248


for overland flow. However, the channel dispersive flux still may be neglected relative to the channel advective flux during intense runoff events.


Sediment Erosion and Deposition In the overland plane, sediment particles can be detached from the bulk soil matrix by raindrop impact and entrained into the flow by hydraulic action when the exerted shear stress exceeds the stress required to initiate particle motion (23). The overland erosion process is influenced by many factors including precipitation intensity and duration, runoff length, surface slope, soil characteristics, vegetative cover, exerted shear stress, and sediment particle size. In channels, sediment particles can be entrained into the flow when the exerted shear stress exceeds the stress required to initiate particle motion. For non-cohesive particles, the channel erosion process is influenced by factors such as particle size, particle density and bed forms. For cohesive particles, the erosion process is significantly influenced by inter-particle forces (such as surface charges that hold grains together and form cohesive bonds) and consolidation. The surface erosion algorithm represents the mechanisms by which sediment is eroded from hillslopes and transported to the stream or channel network. Entrainment rates may be estimated from site-specific erosion rate studies or, in general, from the difference between sediment transport capacity and advective fluxes:

where vr = resuspension (erosion) velocity [L/T], Jc = sediment transport capacity areal flux [M/L2/T], va = advective (flow) velocity (in the x- or y-direction) [L/T]. The rate of sediment deposition is proportional to the sediment concentration and settling velocity. If the sediment transport capacity is lower than the sediment load, sediment deposition occurs. The process of sediment deposition is highly selective, the settling velocity of an aggregate or particle being a function of its size, shape, and density. Coarse particles (>62 µm) are typically non-cohesive and generally have large settling velocities under quiescent conditions. Numerous empirical relationships to describe the non-cohesive particle settling velocities are available. For non-cohesive (fine sand) particles with diameters from 62 µm to 500 µm, the settling velocity can be computed as (24):

where vsq = quiescent settling velocity [L/T], ν = kinematic viscosity of water [L2/ T], and d* = dimensionless particle diameter. 249



Fine particles often behave in a cohesive manner. If the behavior is cohesive, flocculation may occur. Floc size and settling velocity depend on the conditions under which the floc was formed (25, 26). As a result of turbulence and other factors, not all sediment particles settling through a column of flowing water will necessarily reach the sediment-water interface or be incorporated into the sediment bed. Beuselinck et al. (27) suggested this process also occurs for the overland plane. When flocculation occurs, settling velocities of cohesive particles can be approximated by relationship of the form (28):

where vs = floc settling velocity [L/T], a = experimentally determined constant, df = median floc diameter [L], m = experimentally determined constant, vse = effective settling (deposition) velocity [L/T], and Pdep = probability of deposition.

Upper Sedimentation Processes The upper soil and sediment bed play important roles in the transport of contaminants. Once a particle erodes, it becomes part of the flow and is transported downstream within the watershed. The fluxes of the channel erosion and sedimentation control the dynamics of the uppermost contaminated layer. Particles and associated contaminants in the surficial sediments may enter deeper sediment layers by burial or be returned to the water column by scour. Whenever burial/scour occurs, particles and associated contaminants are transported through each subsurface sediment segment within a vertical stack. In response to the difference between bed form transport, erosion, and deposition fluxes, the net addition (burial) or net loss (scour) of particles from the bed causes the bed surface elevation to increase or decrease. The rise or fall of the bed surface is governed by the sediment continuity (conservation of mass) equation, various forms of which are attributed to Exner equation (29). Julien (21) presents a derivation of the bed elevation continuity equation for an elemental control volume that includes vertical and lateral (x- and y-direction) transport terms. Neglecting bed consolidation and compaction processes, and assuming that only vertical mass transport processes (erosion and deposition) occur, the sediment continuity equation for the change in elevation of the soil or sediment bed surface may be expressed as:

where z = elevation of the soil surface [L], ρb = bulk density of soil or bed sediments [M/L3], Csb = concentration of sediment at the bottom boundary [M/L3]. 250



Contaminant Transport, Transformation and Fate Sub-Model In a watershed, contaminants may be transferred between phases and may be degraded by any of a number of chemical and biological processes. CTT&F uses physically based governing equations that describe the major physical transport and biochemical processes affecting contaminants in a watershed. The governing equations are based on mass conservation for a differential control volume. Mathematical modeling of contaminant transport processes involves simultaneous solution of governing equations for the water column and the underlying bed. An overview of processes in the CTT&F sub-model is presented in Figure 3, where the system is represented as two compartments: water column (runoff or surface water) and surface soil or sediment.

Figure 3. Schematic chart of the key processes simulated by CTT&F sub-model (13). Four Phase Partitioning and Distribution of Contaminants Explosive contaminants on training ranges are commonly present as crystalline solids (30). For purposes of realistic contaminant transport modeling and range assessment, four contaminant phases are modeled: solid particles, freely dissolved, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) bound dissolved, and sediment sorbed particulates:

where Cs = solid particle concentration [M/L3], Cd = free dissolved phase concentration [M/L3], Cb = DOC bound phase concentration [M/L3], Cp = sediment sorbed phase concentration [M/L3], CT = total non-solid phase concentration [M/L3], and CTT = total contaminant concentration [M/L3]. 251



Solid particle contaminants are treated as a separate, non-equilibrium phase and then are represented in the sediment sub-model as reactive particles that can dissolve over time and enter into water by a kinetic (rate limited) dissolution process. Once dissolved into water, the contaminant is subject to redistribution among the other three phases. In order to model the three phases, distribution coefficients are used to describe the fraction of total non-solid contaminant associated between freely dissolved, DOC-bound dissolved, and sediment sorbed particulates. Partitioning reactions are usually fast relative to other environmental processes, and local equilibrium may be assumed to exist between the freely dissolved (aqueous), DOC-bound phases, and sediment particle-sorbed. Equilibrium partitioning of contaminants between phases is described by the partition (distribution) coefficient, concentration and effectiveness of binding agents, and concentration of particles or organic carbon. Using the equilibrium partitioning approach, the fraction of the total non-solid contaminant in dissolved, bound, and sorbed phases can be expressed as (31):

where fd = fraction of total non-solid contaminant in dissolved phase; fb = fraction of total non-solid contaminant in DOC-bound phase; fpn = fraction of total non-solid contaminant in sorbed phase associated with particle n; kb = DOC binding coefficient [L3/M]; kpn = distribution coefficient [L3/M]; CDOC = DOC concentration [M/L3]; and Cpn = concentration of particle n [M/L3]. The fractions in Equations (11a - c) sum to unity: fd + fb + ∑fpn = 1. Adsorption data usually conform to the linear assumption of the distribution coefficient expression over a very restricted solution concentration range. For the soils or bed sediments, the fractions associated with dissolved, DOC, and sorbed phases, respectively, are derived by considering water content and porosity. Given the total non-solid concentration and the three phase fractions, the dissolved, bound, and sorbed concentrations at equilibrium are uniquely determined as follows:

252



Contaminant Transport Within a watershed, contaminant transport processes can be divided into those acting in upland areas (the overland plane) and those in streams (the channel network). These processes are described using the advection-dispersion equation (ADE). For runoff and surface water, the most important transport processes are advection, dispersion, infiltration, erosion, deposition, and mass transfer between the water column and underlying surface soil or sediment (the bed). Additional terms are included to account for mass transfer and transformation processes as well as point sources and sinks. Lateral inflow and outflow terms are added to account for mass transfer when runoff and surface water move between the overland plane and channel network. The upper soil and bed play important roles in contaminant transport because contaminants can be eroded, migrate through the bed by infiltration, transmission loss, or other porewater gradient-driven processes. The upper layer gains mass through sedimentation, but loses it through erosion as well as further burial. For surface soil and sediment, the most important transport processes are erosion, deposition, and mass transfer between overlying water and the bed. Similar to water column, CTT&F modeled contaminant kinetics include partitioning, mass transfer and transformation processes in the bed. Interactions of surface water and the upper bed are illustrated in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Conceptual transport processes in overland flow and upper soil layer.

Governing equations for the total concentration of contaminants are expressed in 2-dimensional (2D) form for the overland plane and in 1-dimensional (1D) form for stream channels as follows (32): Overland runoff

253


Upper soil


Channel flow

Upper sediment

where , = total non-solid contaminant concentration in surface water [M/L3]; , = total non-solid contaminant concentration in the bed [M/L3]; Dx, Dy = contaminant dispersion coefficient in the x- or y-direction [L2/T]; ke = effective mass transfer coefficient between surface water and the bed [L/T]; E = vertical diffusion coefficient [L2/T]; As = interfacial area [L2]; and Δz = depth of upper surficial [L]; and ΣSk = total contaminant transformation flux, positive indicates a source and negative a sink [M/L3/T]. The superscripts “r” and “w” denote overland runoff and channel surface water, respectively. Previous transport equations assume that contaminants either attach to soil particles or partition to water and DOC when wet. Contaminants can be deposited from the air and applied on the surface in a solid form. As such, contaminant solid particles are carried by runoff and surface water and transported through erosion and deposition processes. It is necessary to track mass of contaminant solids within the watershed. The sediment transport equation assumes the types of "solids" variables are conservative, which indicates that no existing kinetic functions are available or applicable. Therefore, mineralization, dissolution, or other transformation processes need to be considered and apply to contaminant solids. CTT&F sub-model performs a mass balance for the concentration of contaminant solids on grid cells based upon specified transport processes, along with special kinetics processes. Mass balance computations are performed in soil/sediment layers as well as the water columns.

Particulate Erosion and Deposition The flux of contaminants between the upper soil (sediment) and the overlying water needs to be quantitatively understood and modeled. The flux is primarily due to sediment erosion, deposition, and dissolved mass transfer. Each of these 254



processes acts in different ways, and hence each must be modeled in a different approach. As upper soils (sediments) erode, the contaminants associated with these sediments are transported into the water column, where they may adsorb or desorb, depending on conditions in the overlaying water. Because erosion rates are highly variable in space and time, contaminant fluxes due to erosion and deposition are also highly variable in space and time. Particulate contaminant erosion fluxes by overland flow and channel flow are estimated based on sediment erosion rates provided from the sediment sub-model. The deposition fluxes of sorbed contaminant particulates in overland flow and channel flow are computed from the effective settling velocities.

Dissolved Mass Transfer In water quality models, a common approach to modeling the dissolved contaminant mass transfer flux between the upper soil and the overlying water is to use a lumped mass transfer coefficient. Gao et al. (33) developed a model that combined the chemical transfer associated with the raindrop impacts and diffusion by assuming raindrop and diffusion processes could be coupled by superposition. This model captured soil-runoff chemical transfer behavior more realistically than either mixing-layer models or diffusion-based models. From this model, the mass transfer flux of the dissolved contaminant between the overland flow and the soil water can be expressed:

where a = soil detachability [M/L3], θ = volumetric water content, and km = diffusive mass transfer coefficient [L/T]. In above equation, km was derived by the concentration gradient across the hydrodynamic boundary layer (34, 35). Diffusion between the upper soil and surface runoff may be neglected since the diffusivity is much smaller than the rainfall induced mass transfer rate (33).

Contaminant Transformations Beyond partitioning and transport, the fate of many contaminants is influenced by biogeochemical transformation processes, including biodegradation, hydrolysis, oxidation (or reduction), photolysis, volatilization, and dissolution. Contaminants may also be linked through sequences of reactions. The importance of these processes depends on the contaminant of interest and the environmental setting. CTT&F can simulate any combination of processes, including reaction sequences and yields where one contaminant undergoes a reaction and is converted to a daughter product. Mass transfer and transformation processes are represented as source or sink terms (ΣSk) as noted in Equations (12) - (15). In 255



their most basic reaction rate form, they are represented as first-order processes that depend only on the concentration of the contaminant undergoing reaction:

where Kbio = biodegradation rate [1/T]; Khyd = hydrolysis rate [1/T]; Koxi = oxidation rate [1/T]; Kpht = photolysis rate [1/T]; Kvol = volatilization rate [1/T]; Kdsl = dissolution rate [1/T] and Kk is reaction rate coefficient for reaction "k," [1/T]. As shown below, transformations can also be described as second-order processes in conjunction with parameters to describe environmental conditions such as oxidant or microorganism concentrations, pH, or solubility, allowing greater specificity with respect to contaminant phases and conditions controlling a reaction. In the CTT&F sub-model, transformation algorithms of contaminants are handled in the same manner in the upper soil or sediment bed as in the water column. The description of water column transformation algorithms provided in the following applies for transformation in the upper soil or sediment bed.

Biodegradation Biodegradation is transformation of contaminants by microbial activity and can be described as a second-order process in which the overall (first-order) rate is computed from rates for each contaminant phase (e.g. dissolved or particle-sorbed) and the concentration of microorganisms:

where kbio = second-order biodegradation rate for phase j [L3/M/T]; fj = fraction of total chemical in phase j [dimensionless], and Cmj = concentration of microorganisms acting on phase j [M/L3]. When dealing with first-order biodegradation reactions, the use of a half-life rather than a rate is often convenient. If a half-life is specified for the transformation processes, then it is converted to first-order rate constant in the CTT&Fsub-model:

Hydrolysis Hydrolysis is contaminant transformation by reaction with water and can be described as second-order processes for acidic and basic conditions and a firstorder process for neutral conditions for each contaminant phase: 256


where kacid jj = second-order acid hydrolysis rate for contaminant in phase j [L3/M/ T]; kbase j = second-order base hydrolysis rate for contaminant in phase j [L3/M/T]; knj = first-order neutral hydrolysis rate for contaminant in phase j [1/T]; and [H+], [OH-] = concentration of hydronium and hydroxide ions, respectively [M/L3].


Oxidation Oxidation (or reduction) is transformation of contaminants by electron exchange and can be described as second-order processes for acidic and basic conditions and a first-order process for neutral conditions for each contaminant phase:

where koj = second-order net oxidation rate for contaminant in phase j [L3/M/T]; [RO2] = oxidant (or reductant) concentration [M/L3].

Photolysis Photolysis is the transformation or degradation of a contaminant that results directly from the adsorption of light energy. It is a function of the quantity and wavelength distribution of incident light, the light adsorption characteristics of the contaminant, and the efficiency at which absorbed light produces a contaminant reaction.The first order rate coefficient for photolysis can be calculated from the absorption rate and the quantum yield for a contaminant in each phase:

where kaj = specific sunlight absorption rate for contaminant in phase j, E/mol‑day [E/M/T], and = reaction quantum yield for contaminant in phase j, mol/E [M/E].

Volatilization Volatilization is the gradient-driven transfer of a contaminant across the air-water interface. The model assumes that only dissolved contaminants can be transported across the interface, and sorption to particulate or DOC reduces volatilization. Volatilization is commonly modeled based on the well-known two-film theory of a gas-liquid transfer velocity. Volatile contaminant concentrations in the atmosphere are often much lower than partial pressures equilibrated with water concentrations. If this concentration is 0, then 257



volatilization will always cause a loss of contaminant from the water body. In such case, volatilization reduces to a first-order process with a rate proportional to the conductivity and surface area divided by volume:

where kv = mass transfer rate (conductivity) [L/T], and Vw = volume of water column [L3]. Volatilization from soil is a more complex process, requiring the balancing of several processes. A contaminant in soil will partition between the soil water, soil air, and the soil constituents. In the CTT&F sub-model, the volatilization from soils is assumed to proceed through a surface stagnant air boundary layer and involves desorption of the contaminant from soil, movement to the soil surface in the water or air phase, and vaporization into the atmosphere. Assuming zero vapor concentration above the surface, using Fick’s Law, the volatilization rate from soil can be estimated by:

where Da = 1.9·10−4/MWC2/3 is diffusivity of contaminant in air, cm2/s [L2/T], Vs = volume of upper soil layer [L3], d = thickness of stagnant air boundary layer [L]. Jury et al. (36) suggested a value of 0.5 cm for d, which in general varies with both evaporation and relative humidity.

Dissolution Dissolution is the mechanism by which solid contaminants like explosives are transferred to the aqueous phase as dissolved contaminants. Once dissolved, the contaminant is available for redistribution and the full range of applicable transport and transformation processes. The maximum aqueous concentration that a solid phase contaminant can attain is defined by the solubility limit. Inclusion of contaminant aqueous dissolution improves model accuracy and has the potential to aid prediction of hazard persistence and assessment of remediation alternatives affected by dissolution of explosives or other granular contaminants (37). Dissolution of a solid particle in water can be described as a diffusion process (38, 39) driven by the concentration gradient around a solid particle, which is expressed as

258



where V = bulk volume (water and particles) [L3]; kdsl = dissolution mass transfer coefficient [L/T]; α = area available for mass transfer between the solid and liquid [L2]; and S = aqueous solubility of the contaminant [M/L3]. The average specific surface area of the solid phase mass depends on the distribution of the size and shape of the solid phase particles and the constituent solid phase density. Assuming solid phase contaminant particles are spherical, the surface area available for mass transfer can be expressed as a function of the contaminant concentration, particle diameter, and particle density (32):

where dp = particle diameter [L]; and ρp = particle density of pure solid phase chemical [M/L3].

Reaction Products The contaminants simulated by the CTT&F sub-model may be linked in sequences through reaction yields. When two or more contaminants are simulated, linked transformations that convert one chemical state variable into another may be implemented by specifying a reaction yield coefficient for each process. Reaction yields for transformation processes are useful in transport models to estimate the persistence of contaminants, including their degradation products.

where kkj is reaction rate coefficient for reaction "k" [1/T], and Ykj is effective yield coefficients for reaction production from chemical "j" undergoing reaction "k" [M/ M].

Numerical Solutions The coupled set of governing equations from (9) to (13) can be solved using a number of numerical techniques. In this effort, the general procedure uses a finite difference (FD) control volume solution scheme. A watershed system is discretized into a mesh of square grids (Δx = Δy), which corresponds to digital elevation model (DEM) grids, the locations of which are described in terms of rows, columns, and layers as illustrated in Figure 5. DEM-derived local drainage directions are used as the basis for channel routing.

259



Figure 5. Finite difference computational mesh of the watershed discretization. An explicit FD method was used to solve the differential equations. In this method the previous values are used to calculate a single unknown for the new time increment. The numerical solution is developed by substituting FD approximations for the derivatives of the governing equations. The solution for discretizing in time and space any of the governing equations presented in this work is obtained by using a forward-time FD. CTT&F also features a “semi-Lagrangian” soil (sediment bed) layer equation to account for the vertical distribution of the physical and contaminant properties of the overland soil and channel sediment columns. Applying a central-in-space explicit FD scheme, overland governing equations (12) and (13) at any FD cell (i, j) can be expressed as follows:

260



where Δx = Δy = w = grid cell size [L]; j-½ and j+½ denote the left and right interfaces of cell (i, j), respectively; i-½ and i+½ denote the upper and lower interfaces of cell (i, j), respectively. Channel governing equations (14) and (15) at any FD cell (j) can be expressed as follows:

where

To generate solutions, the model computes dynamic mass balances for each state variable and accounts for all material that enters, accumulates within, or leaves a control volume through precipitation excess, external loads, transport and transformation. Overland flow transport calculations precede channel transport calculations (for the current time step) and the channel calculations start at the top link of the stream system and progress downstream. Thus the only unknowns for each channel link calculation are the contaminant concentration at the downstream end of the link at the end of the time step. The behavior of the numerical solution depends on the contaminant, the relative importance of the processes occurring, and the value of the Courant number. Small time steps are used in the beginning of each simulation because of the highly nonlinear nature of the equations.

Model Testing and Validation Experimental Design To validate the general performance of the model, the CTT&F sub-model was evaluated by means of a test plot study of explosives transport and transformation 261



processes. The experimental procedure was designed to mimic rainfall-driven surface runoff and transport of explosives residuals deposited on surface soils at firing ranges. The experimental plot was 9.0 ft x 7.5 ft. The plot had a bed slope 2% and was designed to collect runoff water and sediment. Experiments were conducted to simulate two different surface roughness conditions: (1) “disturbed” (unvegetated); and (2) “undisturbed” (vegetated). The soils for these experiments were obtained from the Camp Shelby, Mississippi military firing range. The physical properties of the soils and initial contaminant concentrations before rainfall were measured as presented in Table 2. Rainfall was introduced through a rainfall simulator. The intensity and uniformity of the simulator were calibrated prior to field investigations. The simulated rainfall intensity for the overall plot area averaged 2.8 in/hr (7.1 cm/hr) and ranged from 2.7 to 2.9 in/hr (6.8 to 7.4 cm/hr). The simulated rainfall event lasted 30 ± 60 ± 90 min. Runoff and suspended sediment samples were collected at the downstream end of each plot. Runoff rates and volumes were determined by collecting samples every minute of a 30 minute rainfall simulation and every minute after rainfall was discontinued until it was noted that runoff had ceased. Total suspended sediment (TSS) samples were collected every minute for the first 15 minutes of runoff, then every five minutes during the 30 minutes rainfall simulations and every minute afterward.

Table 2. Physical characteristics of Camp Shelby fire range soils

a

Sand (%)

Silt (%)

Clay (%)

60

20

20

CEC = cation exchange capacity conductivity

CECa (meq/100g)

TOCb

PH

Ksc (in/hr)

11.6/9.8

1.1

5.2

0.55

b

TOC = total organic carbon

c

Ks = hydraulic

For the contaminant transport and transformation experiments, this study focused on Comp B, one of the primary explosive formulations used in munitions since World War II for its high explosive yield (40). Range activities can result in locally scattered chunks of Comp B on the soil surface with particles having a variety of surface textures and RDX/TNT ratios (4). 500 grams of Comp B in particles of various sizes (less then 1 cm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness to 3.5 cm in diameter and 2.5 cm thickness) was applied onto the soil surface. The Comp B used for this study was a 60/39 mixture of RDX and TNT with 1% wax and in the form of crystalline solids. Table 3 shows the average explosive contaminant concentrations for three Comp B samples. The physical and chemical properties of RDX and TNT are summarized in Table 4. After Comp B application to the soil surface, the test plot was subjected to a simulated rainfall event, which induced overland flow and contaminant transport. Once in the water, the main factor affecting fate and transport of RDX and TNT is advection with contributing factors being adsorption and transformation (2). The rainwater was pre-tested for RDX and TNT to insure 262


no additional contaminant was entering the system. The contaminant reaction and transport caused by each rainfall event was measured by collecting samples. During each rainfall event, 4-liter runoff samples were collected every 5 minutes (for 30 minutes after initiation of runoff) for chemical analysis and concentration of explosives.


Table 3. Analysis for three Comp B particles Comp B

HMX (mg/kg)

RDX (mg/kg)

TNT (mg/kg)

1

59424

562798

350955

2

68039

637121

393580

3

71505

672170

422214

Table 4. Physical and chemical characteristics of RDX and TNTa Parameter

a

RDX

TNT

Empirical formula

C3H6N8O6

C7H5N3O6

Molecular weight (g/mol)

222.15

227.13

Density (g/cm3)

1.82

1.654

Solubility in water (mg/L)

28.9 – 75.7

100 – 200

Diffusion coefficient in water (cm2/s)

7.15 × 10-6

6.71 × 10-6

Octanol-water partition coefficient Log kow

0.81, 0.87

2.06, 1.86

Organic carbon partition coefficient Log koc

0.89 – 2.13

2.72

Soil-water partition coefficient kd (mL/g)

0.0 – 7.8

0.0 – 56.0

Henry constant kH (atm m3/mol)

1.96 × 10-11, 2.6 × 10-11

1.1 × 10-8

from McGrath (30)

The experimental plot was modeled using a domain consisting of 30 grid cells with a grid cell resolution of 1.5 ft by 1.5 ft (0.46 m by 0.46 m). In this study various transformation parameters for RDX and TNT were calibrated empirically to reproduce the measured concentrations of RDX and TNT from the experiment based on their ranges in previous studies. Parameters included the following: dissolution rate, adsorption kinetics, soil to water partition coefficients, and transformation rate coefficients. Given the small scale of the test plot and the short duration of simulated rainfall, the focus of this study was the dissolution of Comp B, sorption with sediments, and associated multiphase transport of the contaminants. 263


Model Calibration and Validation


The CTT&F sub-model parameters subject to calibration were the diffusion coefficient, first order transformation rate, and partitioning coefficients. Calibrated model parameter values for RDX and TNT are summarized in Table 5. With one exception, parameter values for the validation simulation were identical to those for calibration. The exception was that the surface roughness values for unvegetated and vegetated plots were different during hydrologic and sediment simulations. RDX and TNT degradation kinetics were not addressed in this study due to short simulation times.

Table 5. Summary of model used parameter values for RDX and TNT Parameter

RDX

TNT

Density (g/cm3)

1.82

1.654

Aqueous solubility (25°C) (g/cm3)

4.6 x 10-5

1.3 x10-4

Diffusion coefficient (25°C) (cm2/s)

2.2 x 10-6

6.7 x 10-6

1st order transformation rate (1/hr)

0 – 1.0 x 10-1

-

Soil-water partition coefficient (L/kg)

6.75

56.0

The model was calibrated by comparing simulated and measured runoff, sediment concentration, and contaminant concentrations and iteratively adjusting model parameters to minimize differences between simulated and measured conditions. Numerous performance statistics have been advocated for determining the validity or accuracy of a model, e.g., Kottegoda and Rosso (41) and Legates and McCabe (42). They include goodness-of-fit or relative error measurements, statistics that quantify the error in units of the process being modeled, and graphical plots. Following statistical performance criteria used for estimating quantitative performance of the CTT&F model were calculated and given in Table 6.

264



where MV = measured value, MV = mean measured value, SV = simulated value, SV = mean simulated value, RE = relative error (%), RMSE = root mean squaree error, R2 = square of the correlation coefficient, and NSE = Nash and Sutcliffe efficiency.

Table 6. Summary of hydrologic, sediment and contaminant transport model performance Parameter

R2

RMSE

NSE

Simulated

Measured

RE (%)

Surface runoff (L/min)

189.72

201.75

5.96

0.723

1.195

0.685

Total suspended sediment (mg/L)

20917.60

30653.33

31.76

0.166

719.47

0.231

Dissolved RDX (mg/L)

2.805

2.782

0.84

0.995

0.012

0.994

Dissolved TNT (mg/L)

3.806

3.776

0.79

0.997

0.012

0.997

Surface runoff (L/min)

151.20

139.83

8.13

0.944

0.641

0.923

Total suspended sediment (mg/L)

726.02

2106.67

65.53

0.04

134.00

0.247

Dissolved RDX (mg/L)

1.155

1.207

4.32

0.687

0.052

0.532

Dissolved TNT (mg/L)

0.443

0.417

6.34

0.895

0.014

0.865

Unvegetated plot

Vegetated plot

The important parameters in terms of the RDX and TNT loads are the physical and chemical characteristics of RDX and TNT. Besides these parameters, flow and soil erosion, including the surface roughness, the USLE practice factor, soil composition and layer depth, also control RDX and TNT fate in overland flow. During the calibration processes, the most sensitive parameters identified for dissolved chemical concentration in overland flow were the dissolution rate and the partition coefficient. 265



Model Results and Discussion Numerical results were obtained from running the CTT&F sub-model. In this experiment, overland flow causes erosion and dissolution of the solid Comp B, a fraction of which infiltrates into the soil while the remainder is transported downstream. Even though distributed observations for RDX and TNT concentrations were not measured in this study, we can infer and trace the migration of distributed RDX and TNT sources using the model. As expected, the onset of rainfall results in dissolution of the solid contaminant, with infiltration and wash-off resulting in removal of the solid within a short period of time. The graphical representation of the spatial variation of dissolved RDX and TNT concentration as a function of time also confirms the generally expected behavior that with increasing time, the peak concentration decreases as it migrates downstream. During this movement, infiltration also occurs so that contamination of the surrounding subsurface area occurs. The model results can provide quantitative information on the amount of contaminant infiltrating into the subsurface. These are important in investigating the loss of contaminants due to the transport and transformation of distributed sources. Obviously, some modifications to these results are to be expected when other transformation effects are incorporated into the model. The calibration and validation results and the statistics for total flow volume, TSS, dissolved RDX and TNT concentrations are summarized in Table 5. With respect to hydrology, model performance was good for both the unvegetated and the vegetated plots and the simulated values compared reasonably well with the measurements. The flow volume, peak flow, and time to peak are all accurately simulated. The event averaged percent errors of both simulated total surface discharges which were less than 10% of its corresponding measured value. The RMSE and R2 values between simulated and measured results for the unvegetated plot were 1.195 and 0.723, respectively. For the vegetated plot the RMSE and R2 values between simulated and measured results were 0.641 and 0.944, respectively. With respect to sediment transport, the model did not fully capture the initial wash-off of sediments for both simulations, the event averaged percent error of simulated TSS concentration from both unvegetated and vegetated plots was 31.76% and 55.22, respectively. The RMSE was considered to be high and the R2 value was low. The model performance for suspended sediment concentration was strongly affected by the initial six samples collected and the extremely high sediment concentrations that were measured from these samples. The errors are suspected to be associated with an error in the sample concentration measurements and/or raindrop splash erosion which is not accounted for within the model. In spite of this, the model was capable of capturing the general trends of TSS concentration over time, the TSS concentrations for both simulations were considered to be satisfactory after the initiation of the event. The Error, RMSE, R2, and NSE values are greatly improved without the inclusion of the first six samples. Surface runoff and sediment volumes from the unvegetated conditions were greater than those from the vegetated conditions. These finding were expected because reduced runoff volumes from the vegetated surface were 266



associated with more resistance to overland flow and more infiltration opportunity time.

Figure 6. Comparison of simulated and measured surface runoff discharge, TSS, RDX, and TNT for unvegetated and vegetated test plots. 267



With respect to contaminant transport, RDX and TNT concentration errors for both simulations were very small (within 7%). The R2 values between simulated and measured concentration results from the unvegetated plot were 0.995 and 0.997 for RDX and TNT, respectively. The R2 values between simulated and measured results from the vegetated plot were 0.687 and 0.895 for RDX and TNT, respectively. Further, the model performed well for two different data sets. Comparisons of the overall shape of simulated and measured results over time for surface runoff discharge, TSS concentration, dissolved RDX and TNT concentrations in surface runoff are shown in Figure 6. These figures are representative of the results for both unvegetated and vegetated plots. The agreement of model simulations and measurements for the experimental test plots explosive contaminants from the field is satisfactory thus showing that the CTT&F sub-model is able to capture the essence of explosive fate controlled by dissolution, partitioning and overland flow transport processes. While the data set used in this study is satisfactory for model validation, deficiencies in the data set, which are common to most watersheds, prevent validation of the appropriateness of the other processes. From above discussions, the CTT&F model results can be used to address questions of management interest to guide watershed contamination mitigation efforts by examining the load of material transported through different areas of the landscape. Bare-ground conditions produced higher concentrations of RDX and TNT than the vegetated conditions for all experimental conditions. Therefore vegetated surfaces are effective in reducing the overall transport of contaminants in overland flow. The vegetation can act as an effective barrier allowing for possible contaminant entrapment within the vegetation, adsorption to the plant material, and infiltration through the soil profile. This study also helps in the understanding of the relative transport of RDX and TNT in the overland flow regime from bare and vegetated soil surfaces. In summury, this experiment illustrates how the CTT&F sub-model can be used to assess the relative impacts that upland source areas have on downstream water quality. Unfortunately, plot limitations inhibited investigation of other scenarios. Because of the limitations in experiment design, further field applications are needed to fully assess the model formulations.

Conclusions The CTT&F sub-model is a significant contribution to multiphase contaminant transport modeling at the watershed scale in that, a physically based, spatially distributed approach is used which combines the upland and channel components of transport and transformation. A coupled CTT&F sub-model with watershed hydrological model is particularly suitable for simulating the impacts of land-use and climate changes on contaminant transport and transformation, and for identifying watershed management strategies which minimize distributed source effects on water quality and ecosystem. The CTT&F equations are comprehensive, physically based, and fully compatible with various distributed watershed hydrologic models which provide the required hydrological and 268



sediment variables. The model computes on a grid basis for considering spatially varied soils, land uses, and other hydrologic characteristics. The physical basis is important because it provides the link between the simulations and physical property measurements. Contaminant transformations are add-on and easily modified to account for more complicated processes. The CTT&F sub-model not only generates time series outputs of contaminant state variables at specified cells in space over time, but also provides the temporal spatial distribution results of contaminant sources in different phases. CTT&F sub-model was tested to demonstrate its performance in describing such processes as solid dissolution, partitioning and overland flow transport using an experimental plot. Comparisons between simulated and measured results for hydrologic, sediment and contaminant variables of the model have been described. The comparisons showed that the model was capable of simulating the explosive contaminants from the field with reasonable accuracy. Contaminants released from surface sources were generally simulated within 10% of observed measurements. Overall comparisons were encouraging, and showed promise for the potential use of the CTT&F sub-model for predicting the fate of distributed sources in watersheds. CTT&F sub-model is an important contribution to the ability to simulate the transport and fate of solid particles, contaminants adsorbed to sediment particles and bound DOC and dissolved into water at the watershed scale. It is recognized that further work on validating the model capabilities to simulate contaminant transport and transformation has to be done with additional field data. More tests are needed to assess the variability in the model parameters, to confirm the predicted time sequences, and to improve confidence in predicted concentrations. Accurate modeling of distributed sources on training ranges is complicated by the need to select the correct transformation process description and then select the appropriate coefficient for each variable supporting the model. Although there exists literature describing munitions constituents transformations, far less data are available for transformation rates to be used in watershed scale modeling. Field studies and further research remain to be conducted to measure the values of these parameters in order to accurately predict and know the importance of these processes. The CTT&F algorithms and integration with existing hydrologic models will be further validated directly against range monitored data.

Acknowledgments This work was supported by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Environmental Quality Technology (EQT) Research Program. We greatly acknowledge and appreciate the laboratory experiment work conducted by Ms. Cynthia Price and her team.

269


References 1. 2.

3.


4.

5.

6. 7.

8.

9.

10.

11. 12. 13.

14.

15.

Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO). Toxic ranges. http:// www.cpeo.org/, 2002. Brannon, J. M.; Myers, T. E. Review of fate and transport processes of explosives. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report IRRP-97-21; Vicksburg, MS, 1997. Brannon, J. M.; Pennington, J. C. Environmental fate and transport process descriptors for explosives. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center ERDC/EL TR-02-10; Vicksburg, MS, 2002. Jenkins, T. F.; Topp, G. C.; Hewitt, A. D.; Grant, C. L.; Thiboutat, S.; Ampleman, G.; Walsh, M. E.; Ranney, T. A.; Ramsey, C. A.; Palazzo, A. J.; Pennington, J. C. Identity and distribution of residues of energetic compounds at army live-fire training ranges. Chemosphere 2006, 63, 1280–1290. Simons, D. B.; Sentürk, F. Sediment Transport Technology – Water and Sediment Dynamics (Revised Edition); Water Resources Publications, Littleton, CO: 1992. Clausen, J. L. Range Assessment Lessons Learned. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal; 2005 (Summer), 49−62. Clausen, J. L.; Robb, J.; Curry, D.; Gregson, B.; Korte, N. Contaminants on military ranges: A case study of Camp Edwards, Massachusetts, USA. Environ. Pollut. 2004, 129, 13–21. Clausen, J.; Korte, N. The distribution of metals in soils and porewater at three U.S. military training facilities. Soil Sediment Contam. 2009, 18, 546–563. USEPA. Administrative order for response action EPA SDWA-1-97-1030, USEPA Region 1 in the matter of training range and impact area, Massachusetts military reservation; USEPA: Washington, DC, 1997. http://groundwaterprogram.army.mil/groundwater/admin/orders/Ao1.pdf. Birkinshaw, S. J.; Ewen, J. Nitrogen transformation component for SHETRAN catchment nitrate transport modelling. J. Hydrol. 2000, 230 (2000), 1–17. Downer, C. W.; Ogden, F. L. GSSHA: A model for simulating diverse streamflow generating processes. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2004, 9 (3), 161–174. Ewen, J.; Parkin, G.; O’Connell, P. E. SHETRAN: distributed river basin flow and transport modeling system. J. Hydro. Eng. 2000, 5 (3), 250–258. Velleux, M. Spatially distributed model to assess watershed contaminant transport and fate. Ph.D. thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO,2005. Johnson, B. E.; Julien, P. Y.; Molnár, D. K.; Watson, C. C. The two-dimensional upland erosion model CASC2D-SED. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2000, 36 (1), 31–42. Julien, P. Y.; Saghafian, B. CASC2D user’s manual - a two dimensional watershed rainfall-runoff model; Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University Report CER90-91PYJ-BS-12; Fort Collins, CO, 1991. 270



16. Julien, P. Y.; Saghafian, B.; Ogden, F. L. Raster-based hydrologic modeling of spatially-varied surface runoff. Water Resour. Bull. 1995, 31 (3), 523–536. 17. Hjelmfelt, A. T.; Wang, M. Modeling hydrologic and water quality responses to grass waterways. J. Hydrol. Eng. 1999, 4 (3), 251–256. 18. Yan, M.; Kahawita, R. Modeling the fate of pollutant in overland flow. Water Res. 2000, 34 (13), 3335–3344. 19. Young, R. A.; Onstad, C. A.; Bosch, D.; Anderson, W. P. AGNPS: A nonpoint-source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds. J. Soil & Water Conserv. 1989, 44 (2), 168–173. 20. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory (CHL). GSSHA bibliography.http:// gsshawiki.com/gssha/GSSHA_Bibliography, 2010. 21. Julien, P. Y. Erosion and Sedimentation; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998. 22. Holley, E. R. Unified view of diffusion and dispersion. J. Hydraul. Div., Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 1969, 95 (2), 621–631. 23. Julien, P. Y; Simons, D. B. Sediment transport capacity of overland flow. Trans. ASAE 1985, 28, 755–762. 24. Cheng, N. S. Simplified settling velocity formula for sediment particle. J. Hydraul. Eng. 1997, 123 (2), 149–152. 25. Haralampides, K.; McCourquodale, J. A.; Krishnappan, B. G. Deposition properties of fine sediment. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2003, 129 (3), 230–234. 26. Krishnappan, B. G. In situ distribution of suspended particles in the Frasier River. J. Hydraul. Eng. 2000, 126 (8), 561–569. 27. Clausen, J. L. Range Assessment Lessons Learned. Federal Facilities Environmental Journal; 2005 (Summer), 49−62. Beuselinck, L.; Govers, G.; Steegen, A.; Quine, T. A. Sediment transport by overland flow over an area of net deposition. Hydrol. Processes 1999, 13 (17), 2769–2782. 28. Burban, P. Y.; Xu, Y.; McNeil, J.; Lick, W. Settling speeds of flocs in fresh and sea waters. J. Geophys. Res., [Oceans] 1990, 95 (C10), 18213–18220. 29. Pennington, J. C.; Silverblatt, B.; Poe, K.; Hayes, C. A.; Yost, S. Explosive residues from low-order detonations of artillery munitions. Distribution and fate of energetics on DoD test and training ranges: Report 5. ERDC TR-052;U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center: Vicksburg, MS, 2005; pp 34–54. 30. McGrath, C. J. Review of formulations for processes affecting the subsurface transport of explosives. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station Technical Report IRRP-95-2; Vicksburg, MS, 1995. 31. Chapra, S. C. Surface Water-Quality Modeling; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1997. 32. Johnson, B. E.; Zhang, Z. Development of a distributed sources Contaminant Transport, Transformation and Fate (CTT&F) sub-model for military installations; U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center ERDC/EL TR-07-10; Vicksburg, MS, 2007. 33. Gao, B.; Walter, M. T.; Steenhuis, T. S.; Hogarth, W. L.; Parlange, J.-Y. Rainfall induced chemical transport from soil to runoff: theory and experiments. J. Hydrol. 2004, 295 (1−4), 291–304. 271



34. Wallach, R.; Jury, W. A.; Spencer, W. F. Transfer of chemicals from soil solution to surface runoff: a diffusion-based model. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1988, 52 (3), 612–618. 35. Wallach, R.; Jury, W. A.; Spencer, W. F. The concept of convective mass transfer for prediction of surface-runoff pollution by soil surface applied chemicals. Trans. ASAE 1989, 32 (3), 906–912. 36. Jury, W. A.; Spencer, W. F.; Farmer, W. J. Behavior assessment model for trace organics in soil: I. model description. J. Environ. Qual. 1983, 12 (4), 558–564. 37. Lynch, J. C.; Brannon, J. M.; Hatfield, K.; Delfino, J. J. An exploratory approach to modeling explosive compound persistence and flux using dissolution kinetics. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2004, 66 (3−4), 147–159. 38. Cussler, E. L. Diffusion Mass Transfer in Fluid Systems, 2nd ed.; Cambridge Press: New York, 1997. 39. Lynch, J. C.; Brannon, J. M.; Delfino, J. J. Dissolution rates of three high explosive compounds: TNT, RDX, and HMX. Chemosphere 2002, 47 (2002), 725–734. 40. Lever, J. H.; Taylor, S.; Perovich, L.; Bjella, K.; Packer, B. Dissolution of composition B detonation residuals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39 (22), 8803–8811. 41. Kottegoda, N. T.; Rosso, R. Statistics, Probability, and Reliability for Civil and Environmental Engineers; McGraw-Hill: New York, 1997. 42. Legates, D. R.; McCabe, G. J. Evaluating the use of ‘goodness-of-fit’ measures in hydrologic and hydroclimatic model validation. Water Resour. Res. 1999, 35 (1), 233–241.

272


The Contaminant Transport, Transformation, and Fate Sub-Model for

Recommend Documents